Classics trump my style.

I may be bold and simple and if you are a literature major you will look down on me when I say: classics kind of suck. By kind of I mean like a lot. Maybe they're were good for their time or you may think they're everlasting. I'm not goingto claim to have read even close to all of them, but of what I have read I stick to my comment. To paraphrase Futurama: "[this play] is as awful as it is brilliant". As is most classic works. Just the way I am writing now is completely out of my character. My writing always has a touch of my style, but it strongly mimics what I am reading at the time. Why do you think I am saying so many words where I don't need to? That isn't me! It's these fucking classics I have to read for class. I usually write some jumbled combination of Vonnegut, Palahniuk, Chrichton and random counter culture magazine (and a constant underlying flow of Chasse of course).

But these classics have me all BLEEEHH. I can't even write correctly. I have to stop reading this wordy aristocratic crap. Say what you will, but classic authors don't have anything on today's super writers. Writing should be about clarity with the least amount of clarity. Classic novels are long, not because they have more to say, but because they double the length of each sentence and drag nothing for pages and pages and pages. Writers have come so far. We say what we mean and we don't say it so only those who can afford private school can understand us. We speak for and to the masses, with beauty and grace [citation needed].

Here's a book to write to: http://http//www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-25th-Anniversary-Nonfiction/dp/0060006641. its called "On Writing well," and I was reading it back when I was writing well.

of Murr and man

I'm really enjoying the Tomcat Murr character because he, to me, is a real tomcat--besides his drive to get an education. Although I know my cat, Kiki, could very well be learning right under my nose and I wouldn't be the wiser. Murr knows hes the shit and he has doubts about man kinds' status in society. We humans are over confident of our perceived privilege among the animal kingdom. We've build empires, societies, cars and computers and have the power to speak and write about how awesome we are, but how many of us could survive if we were plopped in the forest and asked to fend for ourselves? many household cats couldn't, but its only their dependency on us that has caused them to lose their instinct.

watch this, since I can't figure out how to post the video below the text

http://http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDaOgu2CQtI

I was discussing with someone too, my very under developed concept of animal ownership as a form of parasitism. The whole idea of taking something that could live on its own and providing food and shelter for it in exchange for it's company. It's sort of liking choosing a parasite to take home and raise until its death. Obviously this is an outrageous example, but what if we humans were all swept up in a new tapeworm craze. We'd feed and shelter them and they'd be our bestest friend ever who could never leave us. I'm sure we'd get them to do tricks for us and bring them to tapeworm shows to compete for longest worm. Now, this is an extreme example, but when we get a cat, they are living off us. They infect us with their personality and vise versa, and not to mention all their actual parasites they bring along with them. Like when Kiki gave me cat-Scratch fever. http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_scratch_diseaseIt doesn't seem like that bad a parasite but it was actually one of the worst expereinces of my life. I've been keeping my eye out for a virus I can catch to give her but haven't found one that goes human to cat yet.

Derrida

I really feel like Derrida lost me by being so wordy. Maybe he does have something to say, but than why not talk straight to the point? It reminded me of all these people I used to know that thought they were intelligent because they could turn a five word sentence into a fifteen word plus run-on. It's like saying: " I am, without a doubt in my mind, the smartest most intelligent pupil in the known NorthWest and beyond" While Derrida's credentials probably outweigh my own and he may well have something brilliant to say, why make it unreachable? Nothing is gained by speaking to a select few intellectuals. I'm not saying dumb it down, I'm saying don't try to impress me. Don't try to be edgy by putting up all these road blocks to understanding you. If you have something to say, cut it down to the base of what needs to be said. Reading shouldn't be a chore in my opinion.
LESS IS MORE.